lets tax ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s assume we (civilians) shoot a billion center fire rounds per year in the U.S. I have no idea how many we shoot on average but that sounds like a lot to me on an annual basis.

Well golly, that would be 100 million in tax money collected at $.10/round. Half goes to security – so that’s 50 million. Let’s assume a guard makes 50K between salary and benefit costs. So, we can hire 1,000 guards. There are something like 130,000 K-12 schools in the U.S., so we’re a bit short.

On top of that, I doubt an extra $15 in expenses would dissuade a mass shooter who doesn’t plan to live long enough to have to pay the credit card bill.

Let’s not forget either that once you open that door it becomes a way to effectively ban guns by simply continuing to raise that tax until nobody can buy ammo. That has actually already been proposed so I don’t think advocating an anti tactic is a sound decision on our part.
 
Ammunition and firearms are already the subject of excise taxes, the taxes go primarily to wildlife conservation programs.
 
The bone you are throwing to the dog, money, has been called "Danegeld" in the past. Probelm is more Danes show up and keep demanding more geld.

blindhari
 
Dr.Rob said:
Ammunition and firearms are already the subject of excise taxes, the taxes go primarily to wildlife conservation programs.
Click to expand...
^ this.

Aside from the fact that ammo is already taxed, do you really think it would stop at your suggested 10cents per round?

We are already overtaxed. For every dollar we earn, we pay about 43 cents of it in taxes to pay for an already bloated government and military.

And the suggestion that this tax would pay for school security really means that some Federal agency would set up yet another bureaucracy to administer a program nationally that would fund even more bureaucratic expansion to run school security at the state and local level. So, for every 10 cents per round how much would really go to school security. A nickle? A penny?

So, pardon me, but I think I'm already paying more than enough in taxes, fees and surcharges just to go about my daily business.

- I earn money, and pay considerable income taxes, social security taxes, and Medicare taxes.
- When I buy ammo or a firearm, I already pay sales tax to the state and county. Oh, plus a little surcharge to the state police for the background check.
- The car I drive to the range with required me to pay the state and county for a title, and the state and county for registration, plus annual inspections. And not to mention I paid a fee for a driver's license.
- When I drive to the range, most times I pay a toll tax.
- When I gasoline for the trip to the range, I pay up to 100% tax to the state for it.
- Oh, and when I call my wife on the way back from the range, yeah, pay federal, state, county, and city taxes on that cell phone.

How about we shrink some Federal agency in half ... say TSA, or even the Dept of Homeland Security overall ... and use those savings to pass down to local jurisdictions to properly conduct public safety.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that would work about as well as the tobacco tax increases they put in place to fund health care for children. They just needed about 26 Million more smokers to actually cover the costs of the program.
 
I have a better idea.

How's about we spend the various tax monies we already collect to keep the violent criminals we do catch off the streets in the first place?

A novel concept, I know...

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
blindhari's comment about King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon England is quite valid.

Suggesting, or agreeing to an ammo tax would be seen as appeasement and weakness, because that is what it is.
How would that help?
 
This is idiotic, no! I already pay enough taxes! They take 33% of my pay, not including the tax I pay on goods. With all the money they take we still have a national debt the size of the Rockies and when they raise or add more taxes it will do nothing to slow it down. How about this, every polititian take a 50% loss in their pay. Every polititian who has entered a bill for any gun laws should get no pay for the next two years. That is fair and will save enough money for your proposals! See I can propose taxes too. I bet mine would be applauded, approved, and seem less idiotic by more than 80% of U.S. citizens! I also propose a freeze on pregnancy by anyone who is currently on welfare. Why should I pay for another one of your kids, I'm already paying for 4 of them! How about no free cell phones. Cell phones are a want, not a need! If your on welfare and don't work you don't need a cell phone.

I'm tired of this socialistic kumbaya crap. I worked hard for everything I have. Watching somebody wheel two cartloads of food to the register and pay with the food stamp card enrages me! These commie socialists have made it a career to be on welfare. They can't get off their keisters to go to work, but they will sure get off them to go vote! Wouldn't want someone in office who isn't just going to give you free stuff for being a useless money-pit!

How about if you get caught dealing drugs, molesting children, or raping someone you get put to death instead of a prison sentence of 3 to 10 years that taxpayers pay for your food and place to sleep. Look I just saved enough money right there to pay for your proposal. Maybe 80% won't agree with that law but I bet I could get 70% to agree with it. Being rewarded for laziness, idiocy, and committing serious crimes is exactly what is wrong with this country.

Sorry gentlemen, but seeing these types of moronic things makes me want to vomit. I'm tired of paying for moochers and the worthless! Just because you feel like making a concession to satiate the the people who don't even deserve to lick the bottom of my shoe doesn't mean anyone else does. I already pay tax to the city, state, government, and a tax on goods! Tell me this, where is it all going? Just implement my proposals and yours will be paid for and then some. You go right ahead though and pay extra for your ammo, I'm sure the public officials would love to have some more money to blow on 100 year old scotch! Appeasement is never the answer in the face of naked aggression!
 
You guys all do realize that firearms and ammunition are already taxed at the point of production by a Federal Excise tax, right? Been pointed out here twice already.

A close friend of mine grew up in an inner city in New Jersey. He graduated in 1971. He said they had armed officers assigned to his school even back then.


We've done both these ideas before - taxed ammunition and put armed officers in schools. Most every mid-size or bigger college has an armed force on it.

I still think we can do something like what Montpelier, OH did.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/ohio-school-board-votes-arm-janitors/60881/

The White House may be signaling to gun-rights advocates that it will offer funding for police in schools, and more teachers may be signing up for gun training, but this could not be what anyone had in mind, could it? The school board in charge of a large K-12 school in northwestern Ohio has voted unanimously to allow its four custodians to carry firearms. As Montpelier superintendent Jamie Grime told The Toledo Blade, the board sees the move as a way to prevent incidents like the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut: "Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn't happen to you is just not good policy anymore. There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures," Grimes said. "Having guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect."

But are custodians "the right people," the kinds of "good guy with a gun" pushed by the NRA in its plan to put armed guards in every school in America? In nearby Lima, Ohio — about two hours away — an editorial letter pushing the idea of arming custodians ran in The Lima News on Tuesday. Loyd Harnishfeger pointed out the idea:


Why the custodian? The choice is obvious. First, they do not have a classroom full of children as their first responsibility as teachers do. Secondly, they are free to roam the halls and have the keys necessary should the need arise to enter a locked down room or area. Thirdly, unlike the administrators, they are not needed for quick decisions regarding evacuation, coordination with first responders, etc.
Click to expand...
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I have a better idea.
How's about we spend the various tax monies we already collect to keep the violent criminals we do catch off the streets in the first place?
Click to expand...

I applaud this idea and will vote for you in the next election, Chief.
 
I was drawn to the title of this thread and, on reading the OP, felt the opening salvo had been fired. From the moment I was old enough to realize that the price tag on an item was not the actual price I have disliked taxes. From the moment I realized that property taxes would prevent me from ever truly owning my house and land I have hated taxes.

To read about a fellow shooter proposing even higher taxes nearly boils my blood. That the proposal comes as some misguided peace offering to those seeking to disarm the entirety of our citizenry is dumbfounding.

If I could impart a bit of knowledge on every person living I would simply point out that those persons holding power and authority who seek socialism don't do so for the purported benefit of all individuals. Any right or freedom of an individual nature are in fact antithetical to a socialist State.

What does that mean to you and me? It means no God. No God means no sanctity in life itself and no value for the individual. There are only two types of people who would promote such an oppressive system: those who seek to oppress for self-benefit and those "true believers" whose intentions, good or otherwise, would pave that road to hell.

The long and short of why giving in to any infringement can never satisfy those calling for it is that they disagree with the premise. If you agree you're not really endowed with that right they have already won. How can any tax on a Constitutional Right be considered acceptable?
 
agree with jbkbert. only a fool expects all of your taxes to be well spent , thats not the point. but it might be a good distraction from the current debate.
Click to expand...

YOU are the only fool to think an ammo tax will "distract" them.

Name ONE time EVER where the government has placed a tax/law/infringement on ANYTHING firearm related... and then stopped there.


By the way from a very quick review of your posts, you reload and you shoot black powder. Way to throw everyone else under the bus.






:cuss:
 
Last edited:
You are kidding right?

LNK

P.S. Sorry mods, I know, not very High Road...I will take my punishment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Read the 2nd again, but this time, read it slowly...
Make sure you re-read that part where it states: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
__________________

Hhmmm....Yes, when throwing out hypothetical bones for political debate---try not to throw out what would be clear violation of the US Constitution.

If the debate is to recommend amending the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment---Say so. Fly your colors high & proud, so we'll know with whom & with what we're dealing.--Patrice
 
The problem with targeting certain goods and services with a tax is shaky ground at best. The power to tax is the power to destroy. What at first may seem innocuous (It's for school safety) and reasonable (10%) soon becomes 15%, then 20%, then 50%, then 300 % (As has been proposed by the anti gunners), which would effectively kill the sale of ammo. Not to mention the fact that politicians never use funds for the one specific purpose as they should. Next thing you know they are stealing to funds to spend on other things. Just look at Social Security. By law it was never supposed to be used for anything else, but the politicians stole it and spent it years ago. Instead of a separate account making interest for SS as intended, it is gone and we borrow money to meet the payments our elderly have coming for all the investment they paid in over the years. Forced investment paid to the government please remember.
 
Probably a troll, but I'll bite.

Let's limit magazine capacity. 15 sounds good. Oh wait, let's go to 10. Cuomo just went to 7. NJ is proposing 5....

You see where this goes. Next big tragedy, and they'll propose doubling the tax. People have already proposed prohibitive taxes on ammo to reduce availability. Why open the door?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Old Hobo
  • Locked
Banning semi-autos and magazines via taxation
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
hso
hso
M
  • Locked
Proposals to tax guns and ammunition
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
foghornl
F
G
  • Locked
Is Pittman Robertson a good way to demonstate that ammo and guns sales are good...
Replies
6
Views
468
gfanikf
G
F
  • Locked
Hoover Dam - Homeland Security doesn't let me drive over it with .22LR ammo!
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
7K
Macgille
M
O
  • Locked
Happy Ammo Day
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Deer Hunter
D
Back
Top